1. Duncan Holling complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sun had breached Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause
6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined, “Lad flee fury”, published on 27 September
2014.

2. The article reported that a three-year-old child had
“escaped” from nursery and returned home alone.

3. The complainant was the child’s father, and said that he
had not consented to the publication of the story, and the inclusion of his
son’s name. The article had originally been published by a local newspaper; and
the complainant had contacted that title prior to publication to express his
concern.

4. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. The
story had come from a reputable freelancer, who had interviewed the child’s
mother. It was not aware that the complainant had contacted the local newspaper
prior to publication, and was not aware of his objection to the story.
Regardless, the permission of one custodial parent was sufficient to proceed
with an article.

Relevant Code Provisions

5. Clause 3 (Privacy)

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual’s private life without consent.

Clause 6 (Children)

i) Young people should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) A child under 16 must not be interviewed or
photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a
custodial parent or other similarly responsible adult consents.

Findings of the Committee

6. The terms of the Code, and in particular Clause 6, offer
special protection to children to protect them from intrusion, in recognition
of their vulnerable position in society.

7. The Committee noted first the nature of the material that
had been published about the complainant’s son in the brief article: his name,
the nursery which he attended, and the fact that he had been involved in an
incident which had potentially exposed him to danger, but had not been harmed.
No material had been published that directly related to the complainant or
other members of the family.

8. Further, the Committee noted that, in accordance with her
right to freedom of expression, the child’s mother was entitled to speak to the
press about her experience, and to offer comment on a matter that might cause
concern among other parents for the safety of their children.

9. The article had been obtained from a freelance
journalist, and the newspaper had not been aware of the complainant’s concerns
prior to publication. Nonetheless, there was no dispute that consent for
publication had been obtained from a custodial parent, in accordance with the
terms of Clause 6 (ii). This section of the Code does not oblige newspapers to
seek further permission from a second parent when publishing stories about
children. There had been no suggestion that publication had intruded into the
child’s time at school in breach of Clause 6 (i).

10. Given the nature of the information contained in the
article, there had been no failure to respect the complainant’s private life in
breach of Clause 3 (i), and publication did not represent an unjustified
intrusion which would breach 3 (ii).